Keir Starmer faces a sharp warning from one of Britain’s prominent political commentators, who argues Labour is wasting the advantage of its 2024 landslide. In a column published by the Guardian, Rafael Behr says the tactics that secured Labour’s huge majority last year have left the party unprepared for government. He contends the Prime Minister has “nothing more to offer” beyond the campaign playbook that delivered power. Behr describes a worsening mood inside Labour, sketching a cycle of bleak polling, mixed tax signals, whispers of a leadership challenge, and social policies that jar with the party’s core supporters. Drawing on Shakespeare’s King Lear to frame the moment, he warns that the crisis may yet deepen before it eases.
Behr’s assessment, delivered on Wednesday, adds a pointed media critique to the mounting scrutiny of Starmer’s early period in office. It asks a central question for UK politics: can Labour convert a historic mandate into a coherent governing project, or will drift and discord set the tone for the parliament?
Timing and location of the critique
The Guardian published Behr’s column online on 19 November 2025. It forms part of the paper’s UK politics coverage, focusing on the state of Labour’s leadership after the 2024 general election, in which Labour won a large majority.
A stark verdict on a historic mandate
Behr’s core charge reads like an indictment of the governing strategy so far. “The tactics that gave Labour its huge majority in 2024 were no preparation for government – and the prime minister has proved he has nothing more to offer,” he writes. The claim places Starmer’s electoral discipline in direct contrast with the demands of office, suggesting a gap between campaign caution and governing direction.
The piece underscores a wider debate since Labour’s return to power: whether a message built on stability and competence can animate a governing agenda during economic strain and public service pressure. Parties often shift from campaigning to governing with difficulty. Behr’s argument makes that transition the crux of Labour’s current test, elevating it from a technical task to a strategic failure unless addressed.
‘Edgar’s law’ and a deepening sense of peril
Behr frames Labour’s mood through what he calls “Edgar’s law,” invoking a line from King Lear: “The worst is not, so long as we can say ‘this is the worst’.” He uses the image to suggest a steady descent. “There is no opinion poll so gloomy for Labour that it can’t be followed by one even bleaker,” he writes, setting out a grim rhythm of setbacks that erode confidence.
The column extends the theme across policy and politics. It says “no fiscal forecast [is] so bad that the Treasury can’t aggravate it with contradictory signals on tax,” and “no misgivings about Keir Starmer that can’t be amplified by malevolent briefing about a leadership challenge.” Each line signals how fragile party morale can become when doubts, numbers and narratives feed one another. The effect, Behr suggests, is cumulative and corrosive.
Fiscal pressure and tax messaging under scrutiny
Behr’s critique touches one of the hardest problems for any UK government: how to balance tight public finances, voter expectations and tax policy. He argues contradictory signals on tax have aggravated already poor fiscal projections, exacerbating uncertainty. While he does not lay out specific measures in the excerpt, the tension he highlights reflects a long-standing constraint in British politics: revenue limits sit against demands for investment in health, education and local services.
Analysts have for years flagged the UK’s narrow fiscal headroom and the political risk of fuzzy messaging on tax. Clear, consistent signals matter for credibility. Behr’s warning points to a communications challenge as much as a budgetary one: if the Treasury’s language appears to shift, it can unsettle markets, businesses and backbench MPs alike, even before formal policy decisions arrive.
Leadership chatter and party discipline
Leadership speculation is a staple of Westminster politics, but it can still unsettle governing parties. Behr writes that doubts about Starmer’s leadership now meet “malevolent briefing about a leadership challenge,” amplifying unease inside Labour. He paints a picture of a party that worries about both direction and definition, with internal noise distracting from delivery.
Such chatter can create a feedback loop. Rumours erode authority; reduced authority invites more rumours. Even when untested, these dynamics can complicate legislative priorities, discourage difficult policy choices, and shift attention from the government’s stated goals. Behr’s column suggests Labour must reassert strategic clarity to stop that cycle from taking hold.
Social policy strains and the party faithful
The column also points to a cultural rift. Behr says “no social policy [is] so nauseating to the party faithful that it can’t be made grosser still with a relish of cruelty,” suggesting some recent lines or proposals have alienated core supporters. He does not catalogue specific measures in the excerpt, but the charge speaks to the wider pressure on Labour to balance an appeal to swing voters with commitments to its base.
This tension often surfaces when a party pivots from opposition to government. Choices that play well with the median voter can upset activists and long-time supporters. Behr’s message is that Labour risks making this trade-off harsher than necessary if it frames difficult issues in ways that appear punitive, needlessly divisive, or at odds with the party’s values.
The power of media narratives in shaping governing momentum
Behr’s essay lands in a media environment that strongly influences political momentum. Columns from established commentators help shape the frame through which voters and MPs view the government’s choices. When those analyses converge on a theme—drift, confusion, or overcaution—they can harden into a story that becomes difficult for a government to shake.
For Labour, that makes clarity urgent. A persuasive plan, repeated consistently, can change the narrative. Mixed messages invite close scrutiny. Behr’s column, published by a paper read across Westminster and beyond, adds weight to the perception that Labour must sharpen its agenda and communicate it with more conviction.
What Starmer needs to show—and soon
The questions raised by Behr revolve around delivery and definition. What is Labour’s plan for growth? How will it prioritise public services within fiscal limits? And how will it manage contentious policy areas without fracturing party unity? These questions predate this column, but Behr’s timing suggests impatience has grown. The longer a government delays hard choices—or the explanation of them—the louder doubts can become.
A governing party with a large majority still needs discipline and direction to maintain authority. The risk Behr outlines is not a single misstep, but accumulation: shifting tax language, gloomy polling, internal briefings and uneasy social policies, all of which add up to a story of opportunity squandered.
Starmer’s immediate challenge is to show that Labour’s 2024 mandate remains a living asset, not a fading memory. Behr’s column insists that the government must move beyond campaign habits and project a firm governing identity: priorities, trade-offs and a clear route to delivery.
Looking ahead, the column’s message offers both warning and opportunity. Behr argues Labour cannot rely on the tactics that won it power; it must use its majority to define and deliver a programme that matches the scale of the challenges. If the government steadies its tax messaging, clarifies its fiscal choices and engages its base without alienating the centre, it can reset the narrative. If it does not, the perception of drift may harden. For now, the debate is set: how quickly and convincingly can Starmer turn a historic win into a governing project the public can see and measure?